Essay by Eric Worrall
Aussie climate academics demanding better international compliance with their diktats.
No more excuses: restoring nature is not a silver bullet for global warming, we must cut emissions outright
Published: July 4, 2022 4.09pm AEST
Kate Dooley Research Fellow, Climate & Energy College, The University of Melbourne
Zebedee Nicholls PhD Researcher at the Climate & Energy College, The University of MelbourneRestoring degraded environments, such as by planting trees, is often touted as a solution to the climate crisis. But our new research shows this, while important, is no substitute for preventing fossil fuel emissions to limit global warming.
We calculated the maximum potential for responsible nature restoration to absorb carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And we found that, combined with ending deforestation by 2030, this could reduce global warming 0.18°C by 2100. In comparison, current pledges from countries put us on track for 1.9-2℃ warming.
This is far from what’s needed to mitigate the catastrophic impacts of climate change, and is well above the 1.5℃ goal of the Paris Agreement. And it pours cold water on the idea we can offset our way out of ongoing global warming.
The priority remains rapidly phasing out fossil fuels, which have contributed 86% of all CO₂ emissions in the past decade. Deforestation must also end, with land use, deforestation and forest degradation contributing 11% of global emissions.
…
Retaining the possibility of limiting warming to 1.5℃ requires rapid reductions in fossil fuel emissions before 2030 and global net-zero emissions by 2050, with some studies even calling for 2040.
Wealthy nations, such as Australia, should achieve net-zero CO₂ emissions earlier than the global average based on their higher historical emissions.
We now need new international cooperation and agreements to stop expansion of fossil fuels globally and for governments to strengthen their national climate pledges under the Paris Agreements ratcheting mechanism. Promises of carbon dioxide removals via land cannot justify delays in these necessary actions.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/no-more-excuses-restoring-nature-is-not-a-silver-bullet-for-global-warming-we-must-cut-emissions-outright-186048
I’m afraid I’ve got news for you University of Melbourne academics. The Paris Agreement is dead in every way which matters. Germany and the rest of Europe are frantically scrabbling for as much coal power as they can get their hands on.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Even the “Professors” at the University of Melbourne are mostly as thick as three bog seats screwed together.
Kate Doolally and Zebedee Knickerless, “Researchers”?
Well, they got their pictures online.
Probably the high point in their unpromising careers.
Highly educated, and with all of the skills and abilities to serve fries with the burger that someone competent has made.
Like our Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand. Expert at wrapping burgers!
Their sponsor is super green: https://www.oneearth.org/
And so is their “College”: https://www.climatecollege.unimelb.edu.au/
I am sure they think the present fossil fuel scramble is a minor temporary setback.
Ho hum.
Pull the plug on their university.
…and convert the university buildings into affordable housing.
There is nothing affordable about a university.
Climate and Energy College, Melbourne? All funded by the taxpayer yet displaying total ignorance of the facts of climate and energy. Time you both went out and earned an honest living – maybe in a coal mine!
Just had a glance at their paper; total rubbish not worth the name research.
To the “learned” academics at the Univ of Melbourne: I should like to point out that 0.18°C just barely passes the JND (just noticeable difference) threshhold. And why should we wreck our economies and lifestyles for that?
I think there are buildings on the campus that if they went from the roof to the ground floor the temperature would increase by more than 0.18°C.
[I don’t care enough to determine this from thousands of miles away, but they can grab a thermometer, put on their sandals, and climb a few stairs.]
Look up her “credentials.” She’s about as dumb as she looks. Degrees in general topics. Writes political papers. Doe not publish any scientific research. Works at a pseudo-college. The kid who is her sidekick looks like he’s barely out of diapers.
Today, anyone at any college or university can write just about anything and get it published. This pure lunatic fringe opinion piece is not worth wasting our brain cells over. Move on, nothing to see here.
“Wealthy nations, such as . . .”
Name a major nation that is not deep in debt?
Kate & Zebedee should read Aesop’s Fable #87 – “The Goose that Laid the Golden Eggs” or learn the difference between “wealth” and work, innovation, and opportunity.
“Aussie climate academics demanding better international compliance with their diktats.
Well, diktats are, in the best light, poor misinformed servants.
If the CAGW agenda wasn’t so completely detrimental to the welfare of your normal everyday citizen, if I had my way, I’d shove that agenda so far down the activists throats that they’d make up the homeless population. Including the creep politicians playing middleman to this nonsense. Unfortunately, give or take, fifty plus percent of the electorate seem to re-elect these politicians over and over again while demanding ever more nonsense regulation.
So, at this point I’m just kicking back waiting for the big burn off of national economies as western countries suicide themselves on woke b.s….
Advise for policy makers has become the centre of “science” whereas real science has no advise for policy makers, it has only thesis and tests.
None of this talking will budge the needle one bit. Unless someone of you would suggest to start a real revolution. Maybe needed. People wear their teeshirts of climate support but are incapable of really understanding let alone discussing the basis and limits of our understanding and what is possible.
There not academics , academics can read.
It’s a funny old world, innit?
We exceeded our CO2 reduction targets under Kyoto. We are tracking to meet our Paris targets, despite being denied the offsets due from Kyoto.
But somehow we aren’t serious about meeting our Paris targets.
I think they’re trying to say that our Paris targets weren’t as ambitious as they would like.
As soon as these academics can prove a certain level of CO2 is too much for plants and trees with experiments in greenhouse environments and that our atmosphere contains anywhere near those levels, I would be prepared to listen to their arguments about reduction. They would also have to show in another set of experiments that there in no natural response to raised CO2 levels in the atmosphere that reduces heating.
Last night I bought up The Great Global Warming Swindle.
While it’s all about the promise Warming, & not the present easier to sell Climate Change, in my opinion it’s still well worth viewing.
That doco. ssould have been enough to have Killed all this rubbish, but of course the likes of the UN’s IPCC simply ignored it.
While it’s a bit hard on the Ukrains people, we should say thank you to Mr. Putin.
He has woken up Europe’s leaders from their Green Dream.
Michael. Vk5ELL
Which they can’t because levels way beyond current atmospheric levels are used in greenhouses and are 100% beneficial.
Those two don’t look old enough to know anything about anything.
Stand your ground. Go on strike until you get your way!
Is it feasible that FF were responsible for 86% of all CO2 emissions in the last decade (as claimed above), but that the sizeable drop in emissions that must have occurred due to the ruinous lockdowns inflicted on the people of the world, didn’t register in the Mauna Loa observations?
How on earth can these two Melbourne Academics publish the nonsense below with a clear conscience?
“The priority remains rapidly phasing out fossil fuels, which have contributed 86% of all CO₂ emissions in the past decade. Deforestation must also end, with land use, deforestation and forest degradation contributing 11% of global emissions.”
The image below gives the ACTUAL contributions to emissions from various sources. Make of it what you will; but for me the enclosed mindset of Academia these days comes over as a dangerously stuck gramophone record.
A fraction of a fraction with net greening and probable net zero warming effect.
That sentence is badly worded, what I take it they mean is 86% and 11% of the increase in CO2 concentration is due to those factors.
As a non-scientist I can think of another source viz. out-gassing of CO2 from the oceans as temperatures increase whatever the cause(s), there are probably other non-human-related sources.
Still bullshit. The assertion that human fossil fuel use is the reason for rising atmospheric levels is based on the scientific incompetence of directly comparing dodgy proxy data to modern atmospheric measurements taken in real time like they are the same thing.
If the Mauna Loa measurements from inception to date were on the same time scale and treated the same way as the ice core “data ” they would constitute about 1-3 data points. All of which they would throw out for being “outliers.”
There is a saying here that
“You can tell a Victorian but you can’t tell them very much”
Many Universities require their academics to work outside academia at times. They are after all preparing students to earn a living outside academia.
Al Gorebull and the many others using ‘offsets’ to justify their profligate lifestyles will have to find another way to fleece the sheeple.
Mark Twain pointed out that experts have a near perfect record when forecasting the future 500 years from now. It is tomorrow they have trouble with.
There was a time when the king would simply hang the complaining climate scientists from their thumbs until the rest of the word complied with their demands.
It didn’t help compliance but it sure stopped further complaints. Ah, for the good old days.
Are they stamping their feet and screaming yet? Silly ass liberal aussies academics. Nutjobs.
Coal fired power stations by country.
China 1,110
India288
UnitedStates240
Japan91
Indonesia84
Russia72
Germany63
Poland44
Turkey34
Vietnam26
Czechia24
Philippines24
South Korea23
Why aren’t all you climate change alarmists protesting against China?